Cat Pregnancy Questions?

"Sheelagh o" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 16 Aug, 21:53, "Wendy" wrote:
"Upscale" wrote in message

...



"cindys" wrote in message
least bit quick or painless. Suffocating and having one's lungs fill
up
with
water would IMO be the worst death imaginable. It would be a horrible
way
for the kitten to die.

Possibly. But, balance the few seconds it would take to become
unconscious
against the hours the kitten was in agony while someone was looking for
a
vet to euthanize the kitten. Reverse the roles and I know which method
I'd
prefer to die.

It wasn't hours. The SPCA was close by as was the vet who did euthanize.

W

It wasn't hours. The SPCA was close by as was the vet who did euthanize.

I "know" that you did the right thing by that kitten Wendy, & so does
every other person who knows you on here. I find it very tacky that
others feel the need to pick over the fact that you did what was best
@ that time for the kitten concerned.
----------
For the record, I hope my remarks were not taken to be a criticism of Wendy.
They were not intended to be, and I would have done the same thing as she
did in her shoes. When my husband put the baby bird out of its misery, it
was only because the vet's office was already closed, and we didn't want the
bird to suffer late into the night only to have to die on its own. Even
though death (using the hoe) was nearly instantaneous, my husband said it
was a horrible experience, and he would never want to repeat it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.




You have spent a long time helping kittens, cats & all manner of
rescues for several years, & during that time, you have saved untold
amount of cats, pregnant Queens & their litters, because of others
thoughtless attitudes towards spaying & neutering their own cats. It's
sad that someone feels that they have the right to come along & nit
pick about what you did for that one kitten, without recognising the
years that you have spent devoting your life towards saving cats &
homing the most needy ( & yes, that includes me whilst I continued to
breed cats too!!)

If I can see this, then so can they too- I feel/ think this is
selective & downright inventive. No hours, were mentioned @ all in
your passage! Some are selectively choosing to see what they want to,
rather than the facts in front of them.

I say well done to you for doing what you could @ the time. It was no
easy task & I'm certain that you found no happiness in what you had to
do to put the poor mite out of it's misery. You should be thanked for
what you had to do, not criticised.

All I can see here is speculation, about what they "might/ or should"
have done.
I only agree with one of them, & only then if I had no other choice.
Lets thank the powers that be that they were not faced with your
agonising choices, & the poor mite wasn't in their care @ the time.
You did what you had to in as short as time as was reasonably
possible. You have my utter respect, it was no easy thing to have to
handle, & I am so sorry that you were faced with that situation. It
was a terrible position to find yourself in.
Best Wishes,
Sheelagh"o"

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:45:11 -0400, cindys wrote:

For the record, I hope my remarks were not taken to be a criticism of
Wendy. They were not intended to be, and I would have done the same
thing as she did in her shoes. When my husband put the baby bird out of
its misery, it was only because the vet's office was already closed, and
we didn't want the bird to suffer late into the night only to have to
die on its own. Even though death (using the hoe) was nearly
instantaneous, my husband said it was a horrible experience, and he
would never want to repeat it. Best regards,
---Cindy S.

I live on an island where the vet is either a boat ride or a plane ride
away, and there have been a couple of times when I have had to put
animals down. Strangulation (for birds) or a bullet (for larger animals)
are quick and painless for the animal. What your husband did with the
hoe was also a humane technique.

Drowning is a chicken**** way to get rid of cats. People do it out
here. One time I was at a marina, and I saw a couple of guys walking
down the dock with a cat in a carrier. It was a nice looking cat. I
figured it was their pet and they were getting aboard a boat. I went
into town and did my errands, and when I got back, I tossed something in
the dumpster and there was the soaked body of this poor animal. If I'd
known what those assholes were up to, I'd have offered to take the cat.

Charlie

"Charlie Wilkes" wrote in message

Drowning is a chicken**** way to get rid of cats. People do it out
here.

Really? As compared to what, something like bashing an animals head in with
a shovel? You risk missing the mark or not hitting it properly in one blow
causing even more pain. While a gun is the quickest way, your living on an
island makes using a gun a lot easier to use than discharging one in a
populated area where the noise can cause repercussions from neighbours and
ultimately the police. As well, the majority of people do not own a gun, not
even close.

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on unconsciousness
within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take a big breath like a
human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than 10 seconds without
preparing with lungs full of air to start. The struggling is an instinctive
reaction, not a voluntary one. An injured animal that needs to be euthanized
is already in terror to the extreme. It can't become any worse, all that
needs to be done is to stop that terror as fast as possible.

Debate it all you want, but do a little investigation first (like research )
before you dismiss it due to lack knowledge.

cindys wrote:
"cindys" wrote in message
least bit quick or painless. Suffocating and having one's lungs fill
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
others feel the need to pick over the fact that you did what was best
@ that time for the kitten concerned.
----------
For the record, I hope my remarks were not taken to be a criticism of Wendy.
They were not intended to be, and I would have done the same thing as she
did in her shoes. When my husband put the baby bird out of its misery, it
was only because the vet's office was already closed, and we didn't want the
bird to suffer late into the night only to have to die on its own. Even
though death (using the hoe) was nearly instantaneous, my husband said it
was a horrible experience, and he would never want to repeat it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

You have spent a long time helping kittens, cats & all manner of
rescues for several years, & during that time, you have saved untold
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
Best Wishes,
Sheelagh"o"


Oh Cindy, I didn't think that at all. I was merely making the point that I
didn't agree with the poster who insinuated that Wendy wasted time leaving
the kitten in pain. They obviously didn't know her very well, because If they
had, they would never have made that tasteless hurtful comment about Wendy
wasting precious time. She would never do that! I would have done exactly the
same thing too.

I think most of us have been faced with a horrible experience like this,
whether it be a bird falling out of a nest, to a cat getting run over. You
assess the situation, then make your choice, & go with it in the fastest
possible way.

The only person that I agreed with actually, was Charlie. Unfortunately in
the UK, we are not allowed to carry guns without a speacial licence to ( And
I don't want to go into another debate about that either!), I would have to
rush the animal down to a farm near by & get the game keeper to do this for
me. I am neither practised in using a gun, or have the guts to do it in case
I made a mistake & left the poor animal in even more pain. I admit this
freely.

I have read Upscale's comment, but I don't have to agree with it. A few years
back, it was fairly common practise for people to drown kittens in the UK. (
I mean going back 30+ years or so) I can remember my grandfather killing the
kittens on his farm. Thinking back, this is probably what put me off the idea,
& why I feel that I can't agree with it either. Like the silence of the lambs,
I have never forgotten the struggle of those kittens, or the needless loss of
life when the cat could easily have been spayed. Because we lived abroad, I
only ever saw him do it that once, but that was enough to last me a lifetime.
Everyone has what they feel is an acceptable opinion, & none of us will ever
agree with the other's method. I think the best thing that we can do here, is
to respect the others opinion, & agree to disagree.

Hark @ me, Lol

Last week, we lost a old regular to the feeding bowl. I can only thank the
powers that be, that he was killed outright, & that I was not faced with the
dreadful situation that poor Wendy found herself in. I hold admiration for
all the good things she has done for cats over the years, including putting
this kitten out of it's misery.

Sheelagh"o"

--
Sheelagh "o"

Message posted via http://www.catkb.com

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:36:11 -0400, Upscale wrote:

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on
unconsciousness within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take a
big breath like a human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than 10
seconds

What is your source for this information? I don't believe it. A
neighbor of mine had a problem with feral cats nesting under his deck,
and he drowned some of them years ago. He said they would struggle for a
good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Charlie

On 17 Aug, 20:08, Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:36:11 -0400, Upscale wrote:

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on
unconsciousness within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take a
big breath like a human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than 10
seconds

What is your source for this information? I don't believe it. A
neighbor of mine had a problem with feral cats nesting under his deck,
and he drowned some of them years ago. He said they would struggle for a
good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Charlie

This would concur with what I witnessed. Slightly less in pure fact.
They were only kittens, & he had to find & catch them first too
It was dreadful & something I never wish to see or support again!! (
Sheelagh "o"

On Aug 17, 2:08 pm, Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:36:11 -0400, Upscale wrote:

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on
unconsciousness within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take a
big breath like a human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than 10
seconds

What is your source for this information? I don't believe it. A
neighbor of mine had a problem with feral cats nesting under his deck,
and he drowned some of them years ago. He said they would struggle for a
good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Charlie

I have a hard time believing it too. It came to our attention that a
animal control in a neighboring
town was trapping skunks, and drowning them in the traps. I lobbied
hard over this. I don't care if
they *are* skunks, I thought it was a terrible, frightening, and
inhumane way to die.

Sherry

"Charlie Wilkes" wrote in message
good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Unconsciousness happens in a few seconds, but yes the involuntary struggles
or twitches can take longer. The point is that the animal would be
unconscious and not feeling any pain. Isn't that the point of euthanasia in
any form, to curtail pain?

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:10 -0400, Upscale wrote:

"Charlie Wilkes" wrote in message
good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Unconsciousness happens in a few seconds, but yes the involuntary
struggles or twitches can take longer. The point is that the animal
would be unconscious and not feeling any pain. Isn't that the point of
euthanasia in any form, to curtail pain?

What is the source of your information?

Charlie

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:08:57 -0700, Sherry wrote:

On Aug 17, 2:08 pm, Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:36:11 -0400, Upscale wrote:

Drowning (or suffocation as it might be called) brings on
unconsciousness within a few seconds. An animal does not know to take
a big breath like a human might. Unconsciousness happens in less than
10 seconds

What is your source for this information? I don't believe it. A
neighbor of mine had a problem with feral cats nesting under his deck,
and he drowned some of them years ago. He said they would struggle for
a good 3 minutes, and after about the second or third one, he started
shooting them instead.

Charlie

I have a hard time believing it too. It came to our attention that a
animal control in a neighboring
town was trapping skunks, and drowning them in the traps. I lobbied hard
over this. I don't care if
they *are* skunks, I thought it was a terrible, frightening, and
inhumane way to die.

Sherry

Mark Twain said this: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into
trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

It's easy enough to research topics like this on the web and find out
what the experts think. The American Veterinary Medical Association's
Guidelines on Euthanasia (June 2007) can be found he

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_we...euthanasia.pdf

Drowning is listed in "Appendix 4 - Some Unacceptable Agents and Methods
of Euthanasia" with the comment, "Drowning is not a form of euthanasia
and is inhumane."

Charlie